COL Gene COL Gene

Our President is OUT of Touch

▼

Our President is OUT of Touch

He is not Tone deaf but Stone deaf

from JoeUser Forums



President Bush has said he will veto any attempt by Congress to stop the proposed sale of six American Ports to Dubai Ports. Mr. Bush has asked what is the difference between a British company who currently owns and operates the ports and a company from the United Arab Emirates? Let’s take a look Mr. Bush:

The current operator is NOT owned and operated by the British Government.

Dubai Ports is OWNED and OPERATED by the UAE.

None of the 9/11 terrorists were English citizens.

Two of the 9/11 terrorists were from UAE.

England recognizes Israel.

UAE does NOT recognize Israel.

Funding for 9/11 did not go through British Banks.

Funding for 9/11 did go through UAE Banks.

England did not warn Osama bin Laden in 1999 of our intent to capture him which enabled his escape but UAE DID WARN HIM and that prevented his capture by the United States.

England does not support Islamic Terrorist organizations.

Several Islamic organizations have been supported by elements in the UAE. The UAE was only one of three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban as the ruler of Afghanistan.

President Bush tells us that the security at our ports will remain unchanged under this new contract. That means we will continue to inspect about 5% of the containers that come into the United States. That also means Dubai Ports will be responsible to supervise loading ALL these containers and prepare the documentation showing what is in all these containers. This is what Mr. Bush is willing to turn over to the UAE.

Mr. Bush – Congress and the American people DO NOT WHANT THIS CONTRACT APPROVED! Just like Rep. Myrick ® from NC said when she wrote you about allowing this contract to be approved – Not only NO but HELL NO! Mr. Bush - bring on your Veto. Congress - override his veto.

It is time for Congress to insist that George W. Bush begin to meet his responsibilities to FULLY protect our ports and borders. He must request to fully fund the Coast Guard and our military. It is DISGARCEFUL how Mr. Bush has FAILED to fully protect our country. It is time for an American company to own and operate our ports.
politics
23,629 views 95 replies
Reply #76 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tova7 -

About this law (requiring recognition of Israel as a condition of commerce with the US) that has surfaced as an issue - if it is indeed on the books, it's been honored in the breech in a big way for a long time


Yeah, I can't find the law any where so I sent an email to Fox to see if they can give me a reference.

But I'm not holding my breath.

I am all for Israel...so any enemy of Israel is no friend of mine...personally...

I still think its cool we have a law about it though.
Reply #77 from JoeUser Forums Top
I suspect the situation is not as simple as that, however, as we've been doing business with the UAE for many, many years.


You are right, but I wonder if now that its in the "spot light" if that will continue?

I've noticed in our history sometimes we make laws for political reasons, but in reality, once the cameras are off....bamo. We break those laws.

Hmmmm.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #78 from JoeUser Forums Top
The devil's always in the details, Tova. This kind of stuff can be terribly convoluted despite good intentions.
Reply #79 from JoeUser Forums Top
Daiwa
You JUMP to conclusions about Professor Tsurumi. He commented on two very different subjects. One is what GWB told him at the time about how he got into and out of the Guard. That is a follow up on the CBS story last year. The other area were comments by the professor about statements made by GWB that clearly show his attitude about the poor, various social policies that clearly show a great deal about the Bush policies TODAY. The Bush comments to the Professor show how radical and far Right the ideas that Bush expressed while at Harvard. Thus the comments of Professor Tsurumi are VEYR RELAVENT to the policy choices Bush is making as president.
Reply #80 from JoeUser Forums Top
You JUMP to conclusions about Professor Tsurumi.


This is also the Professor that said GWB spanked and road him like a horse.

Then bragged to this leftwing Professor how he skipped out of his Guard Duty.

Lets just add one more thing, if GWB was as much of a Rightwing racist student that Professor Tsurumi claims he was. Then why on the Green Earth would GWB even hang out with a openly Leftwing Asian Professor?
Reply #81 from JoeUser Forums Top

As I have said in an earlier post, those that pan what I have said just show their ignorance. My information is founded on the expert advice of the people and official Federal Agencies I have indicated. So when you argue with me you also argue will all the nationally known experts I used as sources. All that does is confirm YOUR IGNORANCE!


Your information is founded on expert advice from those experts who you agree with but dismiss all those who contradict you. So whows the real ignorant person here? Hell i could right a book about the horrors of the US military by simply dismissing all the good things they have done. Only ignorant people would believe the one-sided book, which is exactly what you and you book are.

And once again, you can take your book and all the info inside and shove it where the sun don't shine. I have no interest in it and it's sad that you would use JU as a place to advertize your excuse to make money off the ignorant and the curious.
Reply #82 from JoeUser Forums Top
And once again, you can take your book and all the info inside and shove it where the sun don't shine. I have no interest in it and it's sad that you would use JU as a place to advertize your excuse to make money off the ignorant and the curious.


If you truly have no interest in it, then why do you keep posting about his book in his thread?
Reply #83 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you truly have no interest in it, then why do you keep posting about his book in his thread?


Davad

What's your take in this? Why do you care what I do? Yes, this is his thread and if he choses to he can ban me from it. But he also has to face the fact that by posting about his book and allowing me to reply about it that he either has to deal with it or ban me. Why am I even bothering with you? I saw you as a pretty smart person here and hardly argued against you cause I admit when I know little about things you know more of. But your making me rethink my stance on you.
Reply #84 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well I searched, sent emails and all to no avail.

I haven't even heard mention of the law again since yesterday. So maybe the judge was wrong...

I guess you can consider it off the table.....for now.
Reply #85 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's your take in this? Why do you care what I do? Yes, this is his thread and if he choses to he can ban me from it. But he also has to face the fact that by posting about his book and allowing me to reply about it that he either has to deal with it or ban me.


What's my take on what? On you arguing against something that you say you don't care about? I just don't understand it is all. Why do I care what you do? I don't really "care" in the usual sense, I'm just curious why you continue to enable him to do something you clearly despise. If you think it's not my business, then you probably shouldn't post in a public forum.
Reply #86 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well I searched, sent emails and all to no avail.

I haven't even heard mention of the law again since yesterday. So maybe the judge was wrong...


I've been searching for this law also Tova. It's not just the judge who made reference to it, I've seen it mentioned in several places. Let us know if you come up with anything.
Reply #87 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit


You just show you complete ignorance. The sources I have used are NOT skewed to the right or the left. They are Federal Agencies, respected organizations or individuals that are experts on the subjects in question. Your opinion and negative comments will not change the information nor the results of what may be the WORST President in our history. EVERY DAY brings us more revaluations of how stupid or devious Bush has been. Every day brings more information to light of how incompetent he and the people he appointed are and the damage they have done to our country.
Reply #88 from JoeUser Forums Top
antiboycott law enforcement info here

Link
Reply #89 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's my take on what? On you arguing against something that you say you don't care about? I just don't understand it is all. Why do I care what you do? I don't really "care" in the usual sense, I'm just curious why you continue to enable him to do something you clearly despise. If you think it's not my business, then you probably shouldn't post in a public forum.


Your right. I appologize. I responded out of anger for something else not related to you and I took it out on you. Like I said I consider you a pretty smart person (not pretty and smart) and can learn a thing or 2 from people like you. Again, I'm sorry, should not have said what I said.
Reply #90 from JoeUser Forums Top

It seems a little strange that the hardcore right wing Bush administration would have no problem with selling ports to Arabs


You will always be surprised by these things until you realise that the "hardcore right wing" (i.e. the administration that has the majority in parliament) does not have a problem with nationalities. Whether Arab or not, this is simply not part of the deal.

The "COL" is right about his comparison of the United Kingdom and the Arab Emirates. If the US are looking for a reliable and powerful ally, the UK is the place to go. But for business deals it is different.

Arab business men are like American or European business men: mostly greedy and prejudices only against the poor.

By doing business with Arab countries, we support their business people. And that is a class that has little problem with Israel (because Jews are great trade partners) and lots of problems with terrorists (because they kill trade partners).

Arab business is our friend, while the Arab third estate might not be.
Reply #91 from JoeUser Forums Top
antiboycott law enforcement info here


You're the best kb!

not pretty and smart


Well, my mother would beg to differ with you on that. She think I'm smart AND pretty!

(Sing along with me)
I feel pretty, oh so pretty!
Reply #92 from JoeUser Forums Top
#90 by kingbee
Thursday, March 02, 2006


Nice one KB, thanx.

I have to agree that this law does change things a bit. But this is also proof of how Mr Col, over here, is the ignorant one that he began crying about this with any legit reason to cry other than a racist reason. He did not want this to go through because they were arabs and nothing more. So not only is Col ignorant but he is also a racist.

Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.


This is definitely a cause for concern. To allow this to go through, not because of them being muslim or because of fear of less security, but because we would be breaking laws of our own. Something to ponder about without leting Col fill your head with hatred rather than reason.
Reply #93 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, my mother would beg to differ with you on that. She think I'm smart AND pretty!


Well, I only wanted to make sure since I'm not sure if you are a guy or a gal. But does moms opinion really count? It is, after all, a bias opinion.
Reply #94 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks for the link, kb.

Does anyone know if DPW has such language in its contracts currently? Is it upholding the Arab Boycott Laws or honoring them in the breach? Given how many ports they already operate, it seems unlikely they are enforcing them. Or perhaps the port operator is considered a non-liable passive conduit, since they don't pack, transport, or unpack containers or certify container contents.
Reply #95 from JoeUser Forums Top

It seems a little strange that the hardcore right wing Bush administration would have no problem with selling ports to Arabs (who are not famed for their love of America).

The right is split on this, most against but some in favour saying the market should decide whether America is safe or not. Seems to me that if the Democrats supported this Republicans would label them 'terrorists appeasers' and now that they don't some Republicans are using the old "racist" tag on Dems they moan about so much.


Riiiiight.... is "that" why the democrats let the Chinese in to run the Port of Los Angles?